- (1.) The petitioner is facing accusations under Section 376 IPC on a complaint initiated by his colleague by the name of Nirmala who alleged that the petitioner on the promise of getting married to her persuaded her to submit herself to him. Subsequently, he married someone else. Apart from the criminal proceedings which were initiated on the complaint, the department also took notice of the allegations and have initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner in this instant petition is that the departmental proceedings be stayed till the time the criminal prosecution is over as it is likely to prejudice his defence.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing the case of the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 3 SCC 679 wherein it has been observed as follows:- 21. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are : (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, administration may get rid of him at the earliest, 31. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings reporded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the ex-parte departmental proceedings, to stand. 32. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the instant writ petition is mis-conceived. It is a settled proposition of law that the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar on their coexistence. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner also reveals that it was after the conclusion of the inquiry proceedings that a challenge had been made on the ground that in the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings there was not an iota of any difference in the material which was brought by the department and the prosecution in the departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings respectively. That apart the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that such like proposition as the one propounded by the petitioner cannot be laid down in straight jacket formula and it may be desirable in certain situations to stay departmental proceedings. The desirability as expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not indicate a conclusive mandate that it necessarily has to be stayed. The reason is not too far to seek as the prejudice caused, if any, to a person during the proceedings which he faces can be assessed only after the conclusion of the same. If any prejudice results on account of the similarity of the material and overlapping of the witnesses, then the impact and the consequent prejudice caused to an incumbent can be evaluated only after conclusion of such proceedings and not on the basis of a presumptive premise that it is likely to prejudice a person. No ground is made out. Hence, dismissed.;